Final Conclusions - Best Actress 1927/1928

It’s been 3 months and a half since announcing this Oscar line-up for the blog, and it never took me so long to finish a Best Actress year. Since then: I got an important bank loan, spent all my life savings, bought a studio apartment, went to Athens again for 2 weeks, had high-fever tonsillitis twice a month apart, renovated the apartment from grounds up and now I’ve started furnishing it myself, while holding a full-time job. And I also held the 3rd edition of the AIM Awards here. So, busy times that might excuse my delay. Also: who knew silent films are not that easy to watch (twice)? :) well, I suspected.

But in many ways, I’m happy I got to write about Oscar’s first Best Actress year. I couldn’t have done it without the help of Cal (who provided A Ship Comes In), so thank you again! None of the 5 performances was really bad, though no classic either – some might feel differently. In the end, no. 1 was easy to choose; 2nd, 3rd & 4th place are almost connected to eachother, and 5th was an easy call. Almost all performances suffered from either the misogynism of the screenplay or its lack of interest in character depth. It was a good opportunity to discover movies, but I’m so happy to get back to talkies.

Here is what I thought about them. If you want to go back and read more, just click on their names:

1. Gloria Swanson, Sadie Thompson

In an era when silent meant over-theatrical, Gloria delivered a surprisingly honest, charming, relatable performance. Sure, there are some minor slips, but it’s hard to match her bravery on screen: both handling the sneaky, a bit vulgar but always human side of the character and also the dramatic desperation when confronted with danger and imprisonment.

the highlight: Begging Davidson to give her another chance.

2. Janet Gaynor, 7th Heaven

She is the heart of the film, giving us more than the material asked for. Her shyness and quiet nature manage to create a connection with the audience, and I did have sympathy for her. While the screenplay stopped me from seeing it as heartbreaking or very moving, I cannot really blame Janet. Her eyes tell a story much more than the dialogue card, but there’s only so much she can do.

the highlight: Finding out the bad news and giving up on her faith.

3. Janet Gaynor, Street Angel
The big moment of the film is the dinner scene, that story-hour in which she awaits to be taken to prison. That’s the only favor the screenplay does for her: putting the camera on Janet and letting her incredibly expressive face tell us the battle inside this woman’s soul. The screenplay is just as dry and misogynistic as 7th Heaven, but count on Janet to make it watchable and emotional.

the highlight: Not knowing if she should say goodbye to her lover, in the dinner scene.

4. Janet Gaynor, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

The character is more of a device, helping define the character arc of the male character. The good elements of Janet’s performance can be found in the quiet scenes of heartbreak or in her naïve hope at the beginning of the film that he might actually want to save their marriage. It’s a performance based mostly on reactions and Janet succeeds: she’s natural and believable.

the highlight: The church scene, remembering what love was all about.

5. Louise Dresser, A Ship Comes In

With such a bad, sloppy film to carry, who could achieve greatness?! She is in a handful of scenes and only 2 offer some possibility to show more than simple physical presence. Her helplessness in the courtroom works, and she delivers a couple of good-acted moments in the scenes with her son, but that’s about it. It would’ve been a good performance, if the film itself had treated the character the way it deserved.

the highlight: Her resignation about sending her son to war.

It was Oscar’s first edition, so who knows how they did actually vote. But Janet Gaynor, with the 3 films on her side, had a clear advantage – and I’m sure it was an easy win given the situation. If there was anyone to bring a surprise, it would’ve been Gloria of course, who probably got a couple of votes. Louise Dresser, I suspect, based on the film & performance, had no chance.

To see other BEST ACTRESS years discussed so far, go to the column on the right.

What’s next: A year from the 1940s. It’s gonna be a filmed draw (from 7 possibilities; 1947 has already been discussed, and I don’t have complete 42 and 49).
Also, starting with this week you can find me on Twitter.

Janet Gaynor, in 7th Heaven

approximately 61 minutes and 6 seconds
52.4% of the film

The film

A street cleaner saves a young woman's life, and the pair slowly fall in love until war intervenes.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

I don’t go with the majority on this film and it’s really not something to give me a great pleasure. I wished I liked it, I thought it actually had lots of potential in the first part, but I just didn’t find any interest in the love story. To me it seemed like a dry, underwritten film, storywise.

Janet Gaynor as Diane

I think we could all agree on the fact that this is the film (out of the 3) most responsible for Janet Gaynor’s Oscar win. 7th Heaven had the popularity of the front-runner, it was a box-office hit and offered its leading actress most screentime to work with. Janet’s performance here is not far from the ones in Street Angel and Sunrise: a humble, honest wife or girlfriend confronted with injustice. In a way, that helps the triple nomination make more sense.

Janet is playing Diane, a young Paris girl living in poverty, abused by her violent drunken sister. When a cocky street cleaner saves her life, she’s taken under his wing and they start falling for eachother. Unfortunately, their happiness is disrupted by the start of World War I. The role sounds very meaty when presented, but truth is: the screenplay has too few to offer to its leading actress. Janet is well above the writing, but the limits are too unbreakable to give as a result a great performance.

I am even putting aside the ridiculous misogynistic tone of the film which drives me nuts (just like in Street Angel), but that’s not the screenplay’s biggest fault regarding Diane. The problem is the lack of complexity in the character and the rugged character arc with visible changes in the character that have no depth. When given this little, in a way I admit Janet does miracles.

Her power of expressing so much using a single look and those tearful eyes, all of this is quite impressing. She’s very delicate, so playing the shyness of the character is not the biggest challenge – and she does it with easiness, also winning some likeability. I felt sorry for Diane, but didn’t find myself attached to the character. Janet does her best to suggest a richness of emotions and feelings, but there’s only so much she can do.

Her best scenes are indeed the ones towards the ending. Her desperation feels very honest, and it shapes a performance that’s technically good, some might say flawless, but to me it lacks spark and versatility. She has no problem in playing a victim or natural innocence, she’s great in the tense moments of the film, but what more is there to it.

Janet is easily the best thing about 7th Heaven, but as in previous projects her storyline and character development on page never rise up to the occasion, to fully bring light on her great talent and give her the possibility to show real range. It’s a good performance, in my opinion tragically sabotaged by the screenplay’s lack of generosity towards its actors. A very strong from me, anyway. I’m sorry I can’t love it.

Final conclusions on the year will follow in a day or two.

Gloria Swanson, in Sadie Thompson

approximately 51 minutes and 23 seconds***
57% of the film

The film

Sadie Thompson arrives in Pago-Pago on her way to a new life, but extremist missionary Davidson lashes out against her lifestyle.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

The film sure doesn’t lack tension, and there’s a very satisfying stage-like intensity in the second half, but it misses the opportunity with an ending that, regardless of the fact that’s it’s recreated through stills, doesn’t live up to the hype it previously promises. Lionel Barrymore would’ve made for a great nominee.

Gloria Swanson as Sadie Thompson

It’s my first encounter with a Gloria Swanson performance outside her iconic role in Sunset Blvd., 22 years later. And we have a very different character and performance: it’s both underwhelming because being a silent performance it takes away a bit from the fun, and also impressive because here she really gets the spotlight, as the driving force of the film [quick note: Sunset was really about Holden’s character, even though Gloria is the scene stealer]. I liked what I saw, but even the performance is not without its flaws.

Gloria plays Sadie Thompson, an easy-going, outspoken, party girl who stops on the island of Pago Pago, on her way to a new job. She has a conflict with an overzealous Christian missionary, who is also an influential man, which will bring out a dark secret from Sadie’s past and cause her a nervous breakdown when faced with imminent imprisonment. It sounds a bit complicated, though the role is not as tragic as it seems: it has its lighter side in the first half.

The role is quite consistent and offers plenty of possibilities for the actress to show range. Gloria looks gorgeous all throughout the film and the camera clearly loves her. She uses it at its best, especially when showing the seductive, fun side of Sadie, in her first scenes. She knows about men, she knows how to amuse them, how to entertain, yet keeping the fine line between what’s acceptable and what’s vulgar. I didn’t always find myself on her side in the first scenes, but I could recognize this girl and how her down-to-Earth attitude was not badly intended.

Gloria has no problem in proving the street-smarts of the character, while carefully underlining the vulnerable, human side, especially in her first conflict with Davidson. She feels cornered, doesn’t realize what she did wrong, and her reactions are natural, well-played and bring likeability to the character as the story progresses. Her reactions of worry and anger are very believable and have a great contribution to the tense atmosphere, so important for the 2nd part of the film.

But as I said, it’s not all perfect. Her breakdown scene was overplayed, I thought, and might be the only weak moment in her acting. One could blame it on the directing maybe, I just thought she was a bit overtheatrical in that scene, trying to take it far enough to justify the change in her character. It’s not terribly wrong, but maybe she could’ve found some other way.

As you might know, the last 8 minutes of the film are missing, and Sadie Thompson has been recreated using stills and the original screenplay for dialogue. That’s a pitty, because at one point there’s a scene with Sadie, and the card says: Behold me in all my glorified glory – I’m radiant – I’m beautiful! And it’s sad we cannot see how she acts this line, which seems so deliciously difficult to deliver or act around.

It’s an enjoyable performance, actually more than that: a good one. She hardly loses focus, gives a believable, confident performance, she’s gorgeous to look at and makes the character more accessible than someone else might’ve managed. Even if it’s a success, I wouldn’t feel comfortable going with more than… Oh, wait: very last minute update: I was going for a 3, but let’s make that an almost . She does sell the film. :)




***I usually don’t count photos of the actors on screen as screentime. But considering the missing footage here, I did take in account the stills from the last minutes, meaning: I also included as screentime when she appeared in a production still in the restored scenes. And that gave me the total of approximately 51 minutes, 23 seconds. Without the restored ending, the screentime is 48 minutes, 57 seconds.

Janet Gaynor, in Street Angel

approximately 54 minutes and 4 seconds
53.9% of the film

The film

A woman on the run from the law finds her past catching up to her just as she is on the verge of true happiness.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

The film has some nice technical elements to it, especially the set decoration and the very catchy music. The leading performance grabs all the attention, but the film has its flaws: the screenplay is terribly misogynistic, to a point that it just seems absurd to a modern audience.

Janet Gaynor as Angela

It’s the second one I see from the three performances that brought Janet Gaynor the Oscar. I didn’t really get the win after seeing Sunrise, but Street Angel makes it a bit clearer for me, and I hear she’s even better in 7th Heaven. With 2 performances to go, I obviously can’t say which was the best of the year, but Janet really shines in Street Angel, taking the film beyond its potential.

Janet plays Angela, a naive woman in desperate need for money, who tries to steal and sell her body, but gets caught by a police officer. She somehow escapes, joins a circus band and falls in love with a painter. But her troubled past catches up, and threatens to destroy her newly found happiness. Oh, yes: and it all happens in Italy.

There’s a lot going on with the character and it’s refreshing to see that the film is focused on her. It’s not a complex role on page, but considering the events that are happening in the character’s life, we get to see a wider variety of emotions. However, like for most of the films from the silent era, there’s a problem with the screenplay: this one’s not bad as a whole, but there are elements that put limitations on the character.

For the most part, there’s the general misogynistic tone of the story. While I was watching it, I felt like I was reading Tom Hardy’s Tess, because there’s definitely a bit of a similarity in the way the female character is treated. Does this actually reflect on the performance? Probably not as much, but it’s annoying to see the woman, so humble in front of the forgiving man, when she’d have nothing to be sorry about… Anyway, me and modern mentality. :)

But as I said: the film is lucky to have Janet Gaynor as the leading actress. There are a lot of scenes where she’s just left alone to act to the camera and her tearful eyes always do the job in creating just the right emotion for a scene.

Her reaction to seeing the beautiful portrait of hers, the emotion of being asked to marry him, all these are played wonderfully. She brings a certain vulnerability and an air of innocence that the character seems to need to be believable, girlie yet mature when it comes to life’s hardships. But the killer scene is of course the one where she has to pretend everything is ok in front of her fiancé, yet knowing she’ll have to go to jail. She doesn’t dare to tell him, she struggles with it, and she looks at him with so much love as if trying to capture the last moment of happiness.

For what she’s given to do, it’s a very good performance. Just like in the case of Sunrise, the eyes do all the work. As soon as those eyes go teary, you are definitely touched by the personal drama of the character or at least impressed with how efficiently Janet is using her emotional charms. It’s a very strong from me, but I can’t go for more, given the nature of the role.

Louise Dresser, in A Ship Comes In

approximately 21 minutes and 23 seconds

30.8% of the film

The film

It tells the story of a family of immigrants coming to the United States.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

There isn’t much to say about the film, as it brings nothing new and watching it today, 83 years later, makes for a boring, challenging experience. It’s slow, predictable, with the biggest disappointments placed in the screenplay.

Louise Dresser as Mrs. Pleznik

Disliking a film always influences a bit my perspective on a performance, even though sometimes I like to believe the contrary. This happens because most of a film’s problems have to do with the screenplay. When I put it like this, it makes sense: the screenplay is bad, which often means little character development, which means less for the actor to do. Based on this idea, I could hardly find a better example that the case of this performance: poor Louise Dresser gets nothing to do.

Louise plays Mrs. Pleznik, the mother in a family of emigrants, Europeans who come to America searching for a better life. As far as the screenplay goes, we know little to nothing about her, and the performance is based on her reactions to what other characters throw at her. Her purpose in the film is to bring some emotion – there’s hardly any character arc and the focus is never on her.

What she does get to do is to express a series of simple emotions: she’s happy about their new home, she’s worried about their son’s army wishes, she’s sad when he leaves for the army, she’s helpless when the husband’s arrested, she’s sad when the son dies, she’s happy when the husband’s back. Is there anything more about Mrs. Preznik? Not from what the screenplay allows us to see.

But this doesn’t mean she gives a bad performance. She’s definitely the heart of the film and creates the only character to feel sorry for: her face is always sad and she nails the drama and the suffering this woman goes through. Two scenes are in particular well acted, or, better said, well expressed:

First, the disappointment of finding out her son is leaving to war; the fear and resignation she expresses, both of which obviously predict the tragedy to come. Second, there’s the courtroom scene – Louise accurately expresses the helplessness in front of injustice, and really gets a minute or two to show the magnitude of the drama this woman’s going through.

With a screenplay working almost against her, she gets almost nothing to do. The film is just a series of actions, relying fully on the actors to give a bit of an insight on the characters. It would be cruel to give 1 star, I’ve never done that, and it’s not a performance I hate. At least she tries to create something, so it’s a from me.

Janet Gaynor, in Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

approximately 38 minutes and 56 seconds

44% of the film

The film

A married farmer falls under the spell of a woman from the city, who tries to convince him to drown his wife.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

Of course it’s a dated film: it was made over 80 years ago. But getting past that, it does have a hell of an interesting cinematography, very intriguing shots and there are a couple of very inspired directorial choices. Even so, the story made me a bit uncomfortable and I never was fully connected emotionally.

Janet Gaynor as The Wife

Silent movies require a different commitment than a regular movie experience, and that’s not always easy to offer. Even more difficult is to judge the performances that the actors give in such film. Most of the times we don’t see the words on their lips and we can only guess how that certain line from the title card might’ve sounded like. It’s a different movie environment, but when it comes to my rating/ranking I promise I try to stay objective.

Janet Gaynor plays the wife of a farmer, in what is one of her three nominated performances for this Oscar year. She represents the good female character, as opposed to the mistress, and she’s generally presented as a quiet, modest, pretty, supportive wife. As the story takes place in about 24 hours, she goes from being the possible victim of a murder plot to a woman rediscovering the love for her husband and becoming again the object of his affection.

The role is a cliché, no doubt about it, and I would’ve rather seen a film about the Woman from the city, but one can’t deny the fact that Janet does give some warmth to the performance and somehow, at least in the beginning, makes us sympathise with this woman and feel sorry for her. Her face is very expressive and, benefiting from a great direction, the camera is always on her at the right time.

But this is mostly on Janet because the screenplay really does offer too little. In the dramatic scenes, she shines through the emotion displayed; but the more comedic ones are a bit silly and make for too much of a sudden change from the dramatically-charged beginning. The performance is inconsistent because the screenplay goes from giving her little to giving her almost nothing to work with. Her smile and her tears are winning the sympathy of the audience, and you can definitely feel her fear in the first boat scene. But the performance doesn’t have a solid writing to depend on and Janet’s charming way of acting can only do so much. I will go with for this performance, and I swear the blonde wig had no influence on my final judging.

EDIT: The rating for this performance has been changed to a before final conclusions. There are some real honest emotions in the performance.